Saturday, October 8, 2011

Occupancy: full (of it)

The New York Times may have been onto more than they were actually aiming for with a little 'quiz' of sorts that they played out in a report on the chaotic Occupy Wall Street, excuse me, focused demonstrations.  When running through a list of comments released by prominent politicians, including the current President and a couple of the presidential contenders, concerning the protests, one thing is clear, even if the OWS message isn't: Democrats support and sympathize with whatever the protestors grievances could possibly be, egging them on, while Republicans see through this anti-capitalist charade, led by college-age yuppies with an adequate amount of leftist radicals and anarchists among them, all of whom don't want to pay for anything, care little about a job and relish in class envy (sounds like European-style socialist democracy movements, huh?).

Here's what Obama had to say when asked if he's following the movement and what would he say to those people attracted to it:

If we rewind to the reporter's question, one might notice that she is clear to frame it in such a way as to recount that these people think Obama and Republicans are part of the problem. While there appears to be some real disdain towards the President among these protesters, it has more to do with Obama not being rabidly liberal enough to their liking, rather than an actual dislike of our extremely liberal President.  So, with his rapidly floundering approval rating tying an all-time low, he'll pander to any constituency at this point, especially one that buys into his class warfare mantra.  From there, it's not a stretch to deduce how they feel about Republicans, especially the most conservative among them...

Nancy Pelosi got in on the action too, praising the protesters, “God bless them for their spontaneity. It’s young, it’s spontaneous, it’s focused and it’s going to be effective.” Uh, yeah...aside from the laughable 'focus and effective' remarks, remember when she called tea partiers "astroturf" and "un-American" people who were "carrying swastikas" when they peacefully protested against the actions of the 111th Congress? Well, Nancy's never been known for consistency.

Senate Democrats joined the fray.  Among the group, John Kerry notably identified himself as an ally of the cause: “I’m very, very understanding of where they’re coming from. I think there’s a lot of frustration and a lot of anger, and I’d been sort of anticipating that before long, people were going to start demonstrating it in various ways.”

Ben Bernanke also expresses sympathy for the OWS crowd, "They blame, with some justification, the problems in the financial sector for getting us into this mess, and they’re dissatisfied with the policy response here in Washington. And at some level, I can’t blame them."

Then to completely jump to shark, we have many rich Hollywood liberals showing up to egg the mob on. Breitbart's Big Government writes, "Hip hop mogul Russell Simmons (net worth: $340 million), alleged comedian Roseanne Barr (net worth: $80 million), actress Susan Sarandon (net worth: $50 million), and film propagandist Michael Moore (net worth: $50 million) have all dropped by to cheer on the protesters in their quest to redistribute wealth while radically transforming the nation."  Francis Fox Piven joined them (yes, that Piven) to aid in the rebel rousing (WARNING: the mob's 'echo' may send your eyes prematurely rolling).

Note that also towards the beginning of the Big Government article, we hear tell that "anti-American radical and rogue financier George Soros (net worth: $22 billion) threw in his lot with the thousands of Communists, anarchists, eco-feminists, malingerers, and professional protesters who have been baiting and taunting police in lower Manhattan as part of a mass demonstration that began September 17."

All a bunch of anti-capitalists who've gotten rich off capitalism...wait, I thought this was one of the things that these demonstrations were fighting against? Telling, isn't it.  Even more so, when you factor in Trumka and the union thugs, including their lawyers, joining the occupancy.  But perhaps Obama's creating a few jobs from these protest through union participation...but I digress...

So from the Democrats' perspective, it's clear that this is a mob (accurately called by Cantor) that they want to lay claim to: anarchists, some scattered antisemitic sentiment, and Marxists of all radical flavors and ages.  Nice.  That should work wonders for the Democrat electoral count.

Meanwhile, on the other end of the political spectrum, there are Republicans (and genuine conservatives among them) who have a grasp of what's going on here...

Herman Cain told the WSJ, "I happen to believe that these demonstrations are planned and orchestrated to distract from the failed policies of the Obama Administration. Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks; if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself!" and "To me, they come across more as anti-capitalism...It is not a person’s fault if they succeeded, it is a person’s fault if they failed.”  Well, that's what many of us were taught, Herman...unfortunately, the same can't be said of the vast majority of these yahoos.

Less extensively, a National Journal reporter caught Mitt Romney's reply when asked about the Occupy Wall Street movement: "I think it's dangerous -- this is class warfare."  Right you are, Mitt.

And then, as previously mentioned, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said, "I, for one, am increasingly concerned about the growing mobs occupying Wall Street and the other cities across the country.  And believe it or not, some in this town have actually condoned the pitting of Americans against Americans.”

Many, including Hot Air's Allahpundit, believe this is just a taste of things to come when the GOP wins next year, and point out the irony of it all:

The most ridiculous (and, if you’re sympathetic to them, tragic) thing about OWS is that they’re trying to mobilize the left against “the system” at the very moment the left is mobilizing to re-elect the guy who’s in charge of the system. In an alternate reality, state senator Obama would be giving a speech today at Occupy Chicago about how greed is the cancer of America or whatever; in this reality, President Obama needs to watch his mouth and stay on the good side of those Wall Street one-percenters who helped bankroll his campaign last time. The whole dynamic is a cosmic joke, amplified by the reality that millions of liberals have eschewed protests over the last few years out of allegiance to the current ruling Democrat and/or the perpetual fear of the imminent wingnut apocalypse that’ll surely unfold if their own party leadership is weakened. That’s why the anti-war movement has faded into nothing; that’s why there’s apprehension but no outrageously outrageous outrage over The One ignoring his own lawyers to wage war in Libya or relying on a secret national-security panel that can place Americans on a “kill list.” Those sins, committed by a Republican, would signal the end of the republic per standard left-wing blather. Committed by a Democrat, they’re merely … “troubling.” Or maybe not even that.

Hopefully, these protests won't ramp up into violence, as some of the rhetoric heard on the streets imply, but one thing is for certain: these mobs are NOTHING like the civil protests of the tea party, quite to the contrary. Yet, again I say, if these are the masses that our modern statist Democrats want to lay claim all means, they can have it.

No comments:

Post a Comment